Of all of the last-minute delays, website bungles, and Presidential whims that have marred the roll-out of Obamacares subsidized insurance exchanges, what happened on Thursday, December 12 will stand as one of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration.

We haven’t heard any comments from the insurance companies that would indicate that they aren’t supportive of Obamacare, have we? I feel like they are complicit in this, and I’m not going to spend much time feeling sorry for them. They seem to be going along with these “Presidential directives” without a fight.

An officer of a stockholder owned company has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders. If the company is essentially being forced into bankruptcy it is incumbent on the officer to save as much value for the shareholders as possible. By declaring bankruptcy now they could divide up the company’s assets before those assets are sucked away by the government. Failure to do this should result in a prison term.

So is the. Highness, the Emperor, going to do this by edict, or is Congress going to do go along with it and help the demigod do away with private insurance?

To quote a famous figure from the left, "What difference does it make?" The system will implode, by design, and in the ensuing chaos the hue and cry from the great unwashed masses will be," Government, help us." This is proven history.

17
posted on 12/14/2013 7:07:20 AM PST
by Don Corleone
("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")

At the Forbes article link, Megan Kelly seems to be missing the larger criminal issue of the Obama administration’s attempt to intimidate insurance companies into providing free coverage for enrollees to cover for the govt complete failures in the website rollout.

As popular as Megan may be, there seems to be an ongoing pattern with her in missing the key points of a given story. Amazing how she completely glosses over the Obama administration’s lawlessness and attacks the insurance companies.

The insurer’s are complicit alright. I suppose this has something to do with the White House telling them that the government will make good on their losses when (not if) they occur.

I am curious though as to just who and which insurer gets “charged” for a non-insured person who receives care? I wander into an emergency room with a broken arm and they take care of me........what insurer does that hospital send the bill to? How does an insurer cover someone who they have no idea even exists?

I am curious though as to just who and which insurer gets charged for a non-insured person who receives care? I wander into an emergency room with a broken arm and they take care of me........what insurer does that hospital send the bill to? How does an insurer cover someone who they have no idea even exists?

“what insurer does that hospital send the bill to? How does an insurer cover someone who they have no idea even exists?”

You are posing practical questions which in their haste to save 0 care the new threatening regs do not address. If they could have designed a system that would work in the real world, they would not have to issue more last minute threatening regs to begin with!

1. You have to present an insurance card to the hospital or doctor. People without insurance on 1 Jan. will not have insurance cards.
2. Hospitals and doctors are not going to send a bill based on a non-existent or expired card. They can’t. They will ask the person who is responsible for the bill. The person seeking treatment can only then try to file a claim on their own, if they even believe they are actually insured and have a guess by whom they might be “insured” in a world where they are actually NOT insured because of 0 care!
3. IOW only people with cancelled insurance will even have an expired card and an idea where to file a claim; some of these people signed up for a higher-cost replacement policy with the same insurer, so they have a valid insurance card. The new regs imply the insurer is supposed to cover them based on their PREVIOUS policy which 0 care cancelled, and not the NEW policy which complies with 0 care legislation?? Try THAT! An insurance policy is a CONTRACT.
4. The new regulations attempt to bypass contract law. An insurance policy is a contract between the insured and insurer, based on consideration: e.g. your first check. Without that, a contract does not exist. Try to go to court and sue an insurance company that did not cover you, based on 0’s threatening regulations. A court uses settled law to decide cases — i.e. here, contract law.

Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It would be easier to rollback OBotCare to the way it was to bring back harmony.

As we all see, the Goobers running the ObamaCare program can’t even do the proper programming to get all the interconnecting insurance databases, and the related informational processing to work properly. And by adding additional tasking of government being the only primary insurance provider would entail much much much more programming that these clowns have shown us that they are incapable of doing. A humongous tasking.

Or Obama by decree could nationalize the private companies that would attempt to keep the institutional knowledge and know-how that is in place and that makes them all employees of the state.

Welcome comrades workers, your overseeing commissars will join you shortly with further instructions from your Dear Leader and on high Emperor Obama.

. . . what happened on Thursday, December 12 will stand as one of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration.

That's just plain silly. After five years, so far, of systematically lawless damage to our country, no single act of evil stands out as different from the rest of the Obama Administration's actions to destroy American life, American values, and the American Constitution.

36
posted on 12/14/2013 7:54:24 AM PST
by Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)

That is exactly what 0’s statements and new regs are attempting to do by fiat — REPEAL [ok temporarily in their minds] 0 care so that people have coverage on 1 Jan!

They are making it up as they go along! They are pushing the mountain ahead with a bulldozer, hoping that with enough pushing forward, they can somehow make 0 care eventually stick even though it is obvious that it does not work. That they can keep pushing it forward and issue more crazy statements and more crazy regulations to prop it up before it totally collapses.

They have already encouraged people to go directly insurance companies and bypass the exchanges in order to sign up for insurance before the deadline. What a concept! ; )

That makes the unworkable exchanges theoretically unnecessary.

These new threatening regs say to the insurers, if you do not cooperate with us and implement these new “suggestions” you could be barred from the exchanges at renewal time.

There may not even BE exchanges by then! HA!

Insurers have to comply with state insurance laws and oversight. Federal regulations, with suggestions, do not overrule law, do not overrule State insurance Commissioners.

And OH BTW, the people who were messed with by the govt, having their policies cancelled, being put through weeks and months of aggravation and stress and fear, are going to be grateful, that they theoretically could have had their same coverage all along, as though 0 care never existed??

Give me a break! People KNOW how much they have been put through, and even if these new regs COULD work, people will KNOW that they have been put through all that since 1 Oct FOR NOTHING!

Again, it is what the majority of voters said they wanted, not once, but twice. Just be patient, their time is coming. Sooner or later, it will be their ox that is the one being gored. Then the weeping and wailing will begin.

“HHS says it may throw otherwise qualified health plans off of the exchanges next year if they dont comply with the governments requests.

These exchanges will only attract sick people who qualify for subsidies. This will soon become very high risk pool. The insurance companies will do all they can to restrict access and deny coverage, but I doubt there will be any money left over, so many insurance companies will simply drop out on their own.

Bail-outs for insurance companies will be a tough sell to the public especially when these companies will be accused of withholding coverage for treatment. The smart companies are staying away from this pile of dog doo.

41
posted on 12/14/2013 8:11:56 AM PST
by grumpygresh
(Democrats delenda est. New US economy: Fascism on top, Socialism on the bottom.)

Insurance companies will raise rates to cover the extraordinary costs to extraordinary levels.

Recall the “guard rails” — the insurance companies will be reimbursed 90% of the losses (that are more than 8% of expected) for the first 3 years ... so the President has just directed taxpayer funds be spent without authorization by a bill originating in the House.

What the insurance companies should do is what several groups of groups of people in the USSR did when Stalin took control of their farms. The members of the village or farm voted on what action to take. The actions they voted to take was to slaughter their livestock and burn their crops rather that turning them over to Stalin. For this action, they were killed, but in the end they would have been killed anyway, but they died on their feet fighting. not on their knees in a slave camp begging on their knees for a morsel of food while being starved and worked to death.

Every insurance company in the United States should immediately liquidate their assets and close up. But they won't. Why? Because they like the free cheese in the Government's rattrap. The Agents of the Government know this and also know that they can eliminate them at their leisure.

I think it is a perfect trap. It’s being repealed via Executive Action. We can argue that the law is moot and repeal it via legislation, once we have both Houses.

I’d like to see it undone and some innovations passed that would encourage more competition:

1. pricing transparency

2. national purchasing rights

3. let individuals get the same tax discount that businesses get

4. Commerce Clause enforcement. If Wickard proves that everything is in commerce, then why are local, county and state governments allowed to interfere in the medical/healthcare market with restrictive licensing, permitting and regulation? (for this one we need a conservative POTUS, but the top three can be done via Congress)

If Wickard [ Wickard v. Filburn ]proves that everything is in commerce, then why are local, county and state governments allowed to interfere in the medical/healthcare market with restrictive licensing, permitting and regulation?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.